<trackbot-ng> Date: 28 June 2007

<scribe> scribe: Valentina

<scribe> Meeting: SML weekly meeting June 28 2007

roll call

regrets from Brian, Sandy, MSM, Paul Lipton

Approval of last week's minutes

resolution: June 21 minutes approved

Approval of the f2f meeting minutes

resolution: minutes from the f2f meeting ( June 11-13) have been approved

Item 5 - Review the proposal for managing action items to the editors

Bassam: proposes to track all editorial actions in bugzilla
... editors have decided to use bugzilla when working on a change

Marv: maybe the person who proposes a change should enter this action in bugzilla

<Marv> Marv, not Marv

plh: can the editors take the task of opening bugzilla for actions?

john: can Bassam close on this issue with Paul ?

<johnarwe> ACTION: Marvin to talk to Paul and decide on the right approach for opening bugzilla on actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/28-sml-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-96 - Talk to Paul and decide on the right approach for opening bugzilla on actions [on Marvin Waschke - due 2007-07-05].

john: done with this item ?

agreed

<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jun/0177.html

Open actions

plh: review action http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jun/0177.html
... review action http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/actions/83 a proposal has been submitted here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jun/0177.html

bassam: two URI's with different users are considered to be the same ?

plh: not sure

bassam: if we say something about comparison then we should consider user, port as well, not only fragment identifiers
... we shold look at the usecases to decide on this
... if comparison is done on unresolved URI then this should be a string comparison

plp: I think this section requires more work to describe URI comparison

john: there is information about this in the document

bassam: there is a difference between resolved and parsed

plh: we really need some sample to understand what we want to achieve

bassam: in smlif any relative uri are using a base uri defined at the document level
... historically the main reason for adding the base uri is to be able to have URI comparison

resolution: section 3.3.6 - first section is incorrect

<plh> ACTION: philippe to review this action 83 based on the current discussion and come up with a new proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/28-sml-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-97 - Review this action 83 based on the current discussion and come up with a new proposal [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2007-07-05].

Resolution: close action 83

<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jun/0178.html

Action 93

plh: propose to replace URI with IRI
... IRI is backward compatible with URI

bassam: is the IRI based comparison the same as for URI ?

plh: not sure

bassam: need to investigate IRI comparison

<johnarwe> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt

bassam: .Net seems to have IRI support in a newer version

plh: what about java ?

<plh> ACTION: Marvin to investigate IRI support in java [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/28-sml-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-98 - Investigate IRI support in java [on Marvin Waschke - due 2007-07-05].

<johnarwe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jun/0179.html

Action 89 - presenting summary changes in draft documents

Sandy's sample is this : http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.20070309.html

agreed to do a simple xml diff on the draft versions and apply a stylesheet to create the highlights

<scribe> ACTION: Virginia to investigate how to run the xml diff for sumarizing draft changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/28-sml-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-99 - Investigate how to run the xml diff for sumarizing draft changes [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-07-05].

resolution: close action 89

Action 5 - Designate normative and non-normative sections when editing

john: this is an editor action

Marv: will move this to bugzilla

resolution: Marv will move this to bugzilla

Review bugzilla defects

john: while we are reviewing bugzilla, one of the editor will update bugzilla at the same time

Jinny had volunteered to do that

bug 4643

don't need 4643 for the first draft

bug 4644 - not required for FPWD

<johnarwe> absent: milan

bug 4647 - not required for FPWD

bug 4651- required for FPWD

bug 4652 - not required for FPWD

bug 4655 - dup on 4811 - will be closed

bug 4656 - there are a couple of bugs related to this ( either dependent or different wording )

bug 4656 - should be done for FPWD

correction: 4656 will not be targeted but priority set to p1

4657 will not be targeted but priority set to p1

4658 - fix this in FPWD

4659 - already done by Bassam; it should be closed

4665 - not required for the FPWD

4666 - not required for FPWD

Jinny: not all defects are editor actions; people should go to bugzilla and work on bugzilla that are tracking workgroup actions

bassam: assumed that bugzilla is only for editorial actions; everything else is using the action system

plh: there are two tracking systems because we can't assign an action to editors

bassam: why not use only one system for tracking the entire work; we can use bugzilla only and not the action system
... the only think we are missing by not using the action system is the integration with IRC

<johnarwe> bassam= bassam

Jinny: let's not use the action system for editorial actions

john: Paul cares about this and he is not here
... let's have a written proposal on this
... Marv will take this action

absent: Zulah

4673 - not required for FPWD

resume from 4675